A Critical Auto-Ethnography on an Incomplete Term in Academic Administration Critical Social Work 13(2) Purnima George Ryerson University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Critical Social Work School of Social Work University of Windsor 401 Sunset Avenue Windsor, Ont. Canada N9B 3P4 Email: [email protected] Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information can be found at: http://uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork Link to article: http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/takingadetourfromajourney Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 2, 17-30 18 George Taking a Detour from a Journey: A Critical Auto-Ethnography on an Incomplete Term in Academic Administration Critical Social Work 13(2) Purnima George Ryerson University Author Note Purnima George, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Ryerson University. Abstract The trend of managerialism and neo-liberalism sweeping across universities demands peer- reviewed outcomes, which replace discourses of ‘service.’ Within this context I, a racialized immigrant faculty member from the global South, ventured on a journey as an Associate Director, Student Affairs. I realized that I needed to take a detour, as my commitment to service was competing with the expectation of meeting the ever-growing number of peer-reviewed outcomes. The situation reminded me of my previous experiences with the university administration around ‘service.’ Based on my subjectivities I had no choice other than to ‘comply’ with the discourse of managerialism and neo-liberalism. I gave up ‘service’ as an academic administrator to pursue research and publication. My decision raises questions about the fairness of similar compliance by other racialized, new immigrant academics. Using critical auto-ethnography, I challenge the current managerial and neo-liberal Keywords: critical auto-ethnography; neo-liberal University; managerialism in university; racialized faculty in university Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 2 19 George As I celebrate my tenth anniversary in a Canadian university, I look back on my career in the academy and on my experiences as the school’s Associate Director, Student Affairs. On a fine winter morning as I started my work, about eight years in, I accidentally met and chatted with an administrative head from the university. The conversation concerned the university’s expectations of performance from academic administrators. Even though the conversation was informal, it represented and reinforced the prevailing discourse of managerialism and neo-liberal trends within the university. I learned that academic administrators were expected to maintain their teaching and ‘service’ to the school but most importantly, maintain their research and publication. Service in academia is defined as engagement, participation, and contribution to the community, profession, university, and school in addition to teaching, research, and scholarly and creative activities (RFA Collective Agreement, 2009). The days following the conversation were challenging for me. I was shocked to realize the perceived triviality of service offered through academic administration and the significance given to research and publication within the neo-liberal university. It was a jolt to my much cherished desire to engage in service and institution-building that I had been so invested in. I considered ways of meeting all of the expectations while holding my academic position and realized that I had to change how I performed my administrative role. However, I was not willing to compromise my process-oriented way of working, as it was beginning to show signs of a growing community spirit among students and between students and faculty within the school, the very purpose for which I had taken the position. Under these circumstances, I realized I had three options: (a) I could resist the university’s expectations of research and publication and continue with service the same way I was providing it; (b) comply with the university’s expectations while remaining in administration and maintain instead of challenge the status quo in the community or; (c) give up my administrative position to comply with the university’s expectations of research and publication as an educator. This situation reminded me of my previous encounters with the power of the managerial academy and the ‘self-disciplining’ (Foucault, 1991a) I was subjected to in order to be eligible for promotion. I realized that based on my constituted subject positions as a racialized, new immigrant academic from the global South I could not resist the university’s expectations and continue with service as any lack of performance would be attributed to my subjectivities and not seen as resistance. I asked myself the challenging questions: Was I willing to be constituted as a ‘non- performing’ racialized, new immigrant academic? Or was I willing to change my way of working as an administrator, to allow myself the time to focus on research and publication? I knew that I was not willing to change my ways of working as an administrator. I was caught between desire and fear: a desire to provide a good quality service as an administrator, a desire to be ‘successful’ as a racialized new immigrant academic, and a fear of being misjudged if I did not meet the expectations. Based on my subjectivities I had no choice other than to ‘comply’ with the discourse of managerialism and neo-liberalism. I gave up service as an academic administrator to pursue research and publication. Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 2 20 George ~~~ In this article I use critical auto-ethnography to document my journey as a racialized immigrant faculty member within the neoliberal and managerial academy. I use my lived experience to challenge the ‘totalizing’ regime of academic success and the continuation of colonial practices by addressing what Susan Chase (2011) describes as the sense of urgency; the urgency of speaking, of being heard, of collective voices and of public dialogue, for personal and social change. I use this "sense of urgency" to promote change by reclaiming the narration of my own life, demanding recognition of these issues, adding to collective stories to promote social movement and by raising attention to complex moral issues and the need for change. This paper evaluates the weakening relationship between the university and community due to an increased emphasis on research and publication and gains insight into the implications this has on social work education. In an applied profession like social work, service is an important aspect of work since engagement with communities provides up to date information on contemporary challenges, issues affecting communities, and appropriate ways of responding. Service also separates the theory-practice divide through engagement and enhances classroom learning by bringing in examples from the field and strengthening student-faculty relationships. This devaluing of practical knowledge and alternative ways of knowing is probed further within my narrative as well as the implications this has on racialized immigrant faculty and the long term losses to the university. I chose critical auto-ethnography as it is about “making the personal political” (Jones, 2005, p. 763) and about “creating space for a dialogue and debate that shapes social change” (Reinelt, 1998, p. 286). It explores the lived experiences of individuals within their historical and cultural context. The purpose of auto-ethnography is to “illuminate the reader’s understanding of [a] cultural event, place or practice” (Tracy, 2010, p. 16) through the ‘showing’ rather than ‘telling’ of one’s self-reflexivity which is beyond the scope of other research methods (Jensen- Hart & Williams, 2010). This method highlights the operation of power within various contexts and the individual’s response to those situations in order to raise important political questions (Denzin, 2003). Soyni Madison (2005) clarifies the political function of auto-ethnography by using the term ‘critical.’ According to Soyni Madison (2005), “[c]ritical ethnography begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes of unfairness and injustice within a particular lived domain” (p. 5). These considerations have inspired me to use this method and to delve critically into my subjectivities to raise larger questions about the fairness of the current performance appraisal system on racialized new immigrant academics in North American universities. ~~~ Less than a year after my immigration to Canada, I was hired by the university. My hiring in this School, reputed for being progressive was ‘a dream come true’ for me. Unlike most immigrant stories of labor market discrimination (Das Gupta, 1994; Teelucksingh & Galabuzi, 2007), my story seemed different. I was excited at the possibility of contributing to the progressive social work practice both through scholarship and activism, as I had done in my home country. However, this excitement was short-lived as I was confronted with the realities of my day-to-day existence in a western academy. Critical Social Work, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 2 21 George As a tenure track faculty, I was expected to engage in teaching, research, publications, and service. As a new immigrant, I had to make a fresh beginning in all of the above areas while reorienting myself in a new country. However, as I strived hard towards fulfilling these varied expectations equally I was continually confronted with a single, “totalizing” (Foucault, 1991a) message of the importance of research and publication. The message left me confused and uncomfortable. I could not comprehend why and how the expectations for tenure and